Find a Lawyer

Case No. 592 of 1982, decided on 9th February, 1983.

‑---S. 12 (ii) read with Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 13 ‑ Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑Review of order‑Appeal against retirement order disposed off by Service Tribunal as not competent ‑with observations that appellant could seek remedy of review before competent authority‑Review petition filed subsequently dismissed as time‑barred‑No exception, held, could be taken to such lawful order passed on basis of specific provisions regarding limitation laid down in Art. 13 of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

This is an appeal made by Ch. Abdul Aziz, ex‑Officer Kanungo, Tehsil Bahawalnagar, against the order of Deputy Commissioner. Bahawalnagar dated 14‑7‑1981 regarding rejection of review petition under Article 13 of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed an appeal No. 588/80 before this Tribunal against his retirement from service under section 12 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. His appeal was disposed off as per judgment announced on 9‑6‑1981, by this Tribunal. The operative para 2 of the judgment is reproduced below :‑‑

' "We have perused the record of this case to satisfy ourselves whether there is any force in the appeal before us or not. The appellant has been retired after completing 25 years of service by the com petent authority, therefore, we do not find that his appeal can succeed in any manner. In view of the PCO of 1981 such like appeals are to be abated. However, the petitioner can file a review petition before the competent authority a right so given to him in the said PCO, Article 13. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Announ ced in the presence of the parties."

3. Consequence to this judgment the appellant submitted his review petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, which was dismissed vide his order dated 14‑7‑1981 being hopelessly time barred.

4. The appellant has now made this appeal praying that his appeal No. 588/ 80 already filed in the Tribunal be considered as fresh and order passed by the competent authority be declared illegal, void and of no legal affect against him.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It .is clear from the above‑mentioned facts that the previous appeal bearing No. 588/80 of the appellant was duly heard by this Tribunal and a judgment was delivered on 9‑6‑1981. The appellant has availed the remedy provided to him as directed in this judgment.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, has dismissed his review petition so filed before him under Article. 13 of the PCO, being barred by time. Since Article 13 of the PCO has provided a specific time limit for availing that remedy, so I cannot take‑any exception to this order which has been competent and lawfully passed by the Competent Authority.

7. The result is that there is no force in this appeal, which is dis missed in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.